D&D 5E L&L: Mike Lays It All Out

[Szatany]

I'm not saying a Cleric wouldn't take that feat.

But if a cleric would always take this feat, you designed a bad feat. Instead of having an interesting option, you made a non-option (at least for clerics and druids). If that feat required being a fighter, it would be a nice feat, that I agree on.

It is moderately powered, IMO. Mearls seems to be shooting for bigger than this

Of course he is, those feats must ≈ to +1 ASI.

 

[Dausuul]

Second, that would be +1 to an ability score of your choice vs. an ability and a hardcoded +1 to an ability score.

Let's say I'm a fighter. I can take +1 Strength... or I can take the feat that gives +1 Strength and [some other thing]. Assuming the [some other thing] is strictly beneficial, I'd be stupid to pick the former.

 

[Ratskinner]

If they made the bonuses +1/+1 to two different ability scores with the option of +1 and a feat, I think you solve a lot problems. You still would probably need to find a way to give the Fighter and Rogue more stuff, but they should probably eyeing turning the best feats that best fit the flavor of Fighters and Rogues into class features anyway.

Non-casters get "+1 & (+1 or feat)" at each "feat level" and casters just get a "+1 or feat".

I do not know what/how to handle that for multiclass characters.

 

[Warbringer]

I'm not saying a Cleric wouldn't take that feat. I'm saying that Alertness, as presented above, is situational and does not make me say "WOW!" when looking at it. It is moderately powered, IMO. Mearls seems to be shooting for bigger than this, and I hope his team can surprise me.

Well, it's more than +1 to a stat, so immediately it's inflation vs the basic rules which means you can't have players using different modules at the same table ( a restated feat goal) and you can't use the same monsters across modules, without modification of do spend per encounter (sorry for 4e terminology )

 

[Warbringer]

Non-casters get "+1 & (+1 or feat)" at each "feat level" and casters just get a "+1 or feat".

Why? Non-casters already get double feat progression?

 

[Warbringer]

I'd be stupid to pick the former.

Better take +1 to Int

I agree though, it's just inflation over the basic game that makes taking just a +1 an inferior choice.

It's a newbie tax

 

[Kinak]

This column is about the best news I've seen out of the playtest.

Feats? Optional per player.
Backgrounds? Awesome.
Knowledges? Make sense.
Skill dice? Gone.

I'm not as thrilled on the "subclasses for all!" front, but I guess I'll see how that plays out. My only real concern is that they're really betting on being able to balance feats against attributes when, traditionally, feats haven't been balanced against each other and classes have values attributes wildly differently.

But I'm curious to see how it works out now, which is a huge step up.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

It's a newbie tax

It's a matter of playstyle. You'd feel "stupid" taking any feat that didn't give you +1 Strength, while I'd consider taking a feat that prevents surprise, but grants me a bonus that does not immediately benefit my character.

The reason a +1 to any stat is more powerful than a moderate bonus plus a fixed stat is the power of choice. You could choose all the "+1 Strength" feats, but if designed properly you'd take a bunch of incongruous side benefits. You'd get the kind of raw power you're looking for. I could take a bunch of feats that spread my stat bonuses around, but piece together through synergy. It's got nothing to do with being a newb, but thanks for placing the smiley so I know you're not intentionally trying to insult anyone.

And it opens the design space of feats back up. With their current plan feats must be "Tremendous." That's a high bar to set and I don't think they'll necessarily achieve that. Some will be, others will be traps.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think we all just need to get over the "this +1 doesn't do anything!" mentality.

Taking a +1 when you have an even stat isn't "getting nothing"... it's getting you halfway to a bump in your modifier. The point here is we need to look at the totality of a character's advancement... and not just one specific level.

So the idea is that at the end of the day... do the total number of ability modifier bonuses you potentially gain over your 10 levels or 20 levels remain relatively on par (and note, I say 'on par' and not 'exactly equal') with the half-dozen plus special abilities you get from feats over that same amount of time?

I don't see any need in finding a way to "fix" the ability score bonus when you're using it on an even numbered score, because it doesn't "equal" the power of a feat. Look at everything you get over the life of your character and see if mod bonuses and feats (mixed and matched to your hearts content) keep all the characters relatively in check with one another. That's the balance we need to make sure to see.

 

[Siberys]

That rankles against my (and, evidently, a number of others') design sensibilities, though; at any one point in advancement, any two options should be mechanically similar in weight. With +1 to ability scores, half the time there's a direct mechanical effect, and the other there's a delayed mechanical effect. You see how that doesn't jive? I mean, if feats were balanced against the average of +1 to an even score and +1 to an odd score, it'd work out, I /guess/, but it still seems harder to design around than it needs to be.

It's the same problem with balancing a powerful end-game wizard by making low-level wizards pathetically weak - it makes assumptions about play that probably won't be borne out in actuality. Admittedly, it's less drastic than that, but it's still there.

You don't design the endgame, then assume the road to that point is free of bumps, y'know?